Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?

Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>

From: Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2010-05-21T20:21:40Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com> writes:
>> Agreed. As long as a trusted language can do things outside the
>> database only by going through a database and calling some function to
>> which the user has rights, in an untrusted language, that seems decent
>> to me. A user with permissions to launch_missiles() would have a
>> function in an untrusted language to do it, but there's no reason an
>> untrusted language shouldn't be able to say "SELECT
>
> s/untrusted/trusted/ here, right?

Er, right. Sorry.

>
>> launch_missiles()".
>
> To me, as long as they go back into the database via SPI, anything they
> can get to from there is OK.  What I meant to highlight upthread is that
> we don't want trusted functions being able to access other functions
> "directly" without going through SQL.  As an example, a PL that has FFI
> capability sufficient to allow direct access to heap_insert() would
> have to be considered untrusted.

That I can definitely agree with.

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation